Author
Topic: Geoff's Ride.. (Read 2958 times)

Goeff resigned as REA editor way before he resigned as a forum member. This was about the time of his first resignation from the forum, so just because he has reverted to guest status now doesn't mean he won't make a comeback later. I did the same thing because I wanted to get more work done on my rickshaw and found myself tuning in to the political discussions too often.

As to the dumb-dumb - it does, to me at least, and probably to others like Goeff (I won't take a position for others though) seem pretty 'dumb' to want to turn the clock back 200 years because of a warped desire for personal freedom, back to a time when employees were often treated like dogs, when there was little or no social security like SS itself and unemployment and medical insurance, when people were forced to work 12 hours a day, even little children, under damp and cold conditions where TB was rife - Sure there is a balance here, and it is likely we are going too far to the left, but let's bring things back into balance and not out in right field.

Then there's this 'dumb' pack mentality, where people are hanging on the words of idiots like Dave Beck and Rush Linbaugh (who I believes is in spiritual control of the Republican Party right now) and the evangelist types who favor back alley abortions and react to Obama's giving a nice pep talk aimed at getting kids to stay in school and do better (even though earlier Republicans gave the same sort of pep talks). This is turning into a very ugly political world where people are just acting 'dumb'. I recall when many of the evangelist types simply tanked back in the 70s, some even going to jail, many having affairs, stealing public donations, catering to lessor instincts in their flocks, and soon, no doubt, we will see some of these more recent 'dumb' political commentators and evangelists begin to tank as things like theft, illicit behavior, and all the other crud these ego-maniacs seem prone to are exposed to light.

I personally like many of the things Ron Paul has to say. He does so rationally and calmly, making a lot of sense, but some of these other arse-holes that some of you like to parrot are simply 'dumb'. I like reading the likes of Ace's comments since he backs them with a bit of reason, but I'm pretty sure Goeff felt the other 'dumb' attacks aimed at him by some rather 'dumb' people. And by this I include dumb attacks like that make at the time of Ted Kennedy's death, calling it a 'Great' thing, in essence. I don't expect you guys to think about some of your dumb statements, as I think some of you are to dumb to do so.

RE pozer, I don't consider you dumb nor do I object to your comments, which tend to be pretty benign. It is the attack dogs who unthinkingly take things out of context and then use them in 'dumb' comments or attacks that tend to put me off.

Clamp's internet use was shut down by Thailand? - what ever country he lives in. When he came back he posted the story of how his address was mis-identified as a purveyor of spam. It took him 3 weeks to straighten things out. Perhaps he was targeted again. Or, perhaps, it is my fault. I went at him pretty hard on a thread about trying to convert a standard rim to tubeless use. I got pretty testy. It was such a critical safety issue that I cast discretion aside and forcefully drove home my point. I should have been more diplomatic. He was a convenient target at a time I had other issues I was dealing with. The points I made needed to be made (IMHO), but I should have made them in a much less contentious manner. My apologies to Clamp and anyone else I may have offended.

This, however, raises the next issue. Larry (LJREAD), I don't quite get your post. Usually you are very even handed, even in disagreement. In this post you use disparaging remarks such as "warped desire" and " 'dumb' pack mentality". I do agree with most of your position. Some people do take things out of context and use this in mindless attacks. I get this. And yes, too many people mindlessly follow vocal demagogues without thinking. But the wrongs you cited were not solved by calm rational discourse. Somebody whipped the rabble up to a frenzy to effect change. From what I can see you have described humanity. There will always be discord. There will always be disagreement and misunderstanding. There will be leaders and followers. Some of both will be good, some not. I think that if we can understand this to some level these discussions will not get so contentious. We should not take these discussions so seriously. I was sorry to see Geoff go. The people that bothered him most were the very people he should have ignored. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he has his right to them. I would never disparage that. I don't always agree with you either, but you seem very pragmatic. That's why I didn't quite get your post. I hope things are OK with you. You seem a little tense in the same way I was with Clamp. Well I think now I am just rambling, so I'll sign off. What do you guys think?

This, however, raises the next issue. Larry (LJREAD), I don't quite get your post. Usually you are very even handed, even in disagreement. In this post you use disparaging remarks such as "warped desire" and " 'dumb' pack mentality". I do agree with most of your position. Some people do take things out of context and use this in mindless attacks. I get this. And yes, too many people mindlessly follow vocal demagogues without thinking. But the wrongs you cited were not solved by calm rational discourse. Somebody whipped the rabble up to a frenzy to effect change. From what I can see you have described humanity. There will always be discord. There will always be disagreement and misunderstanding. There will be leaders and followers. Some of both will be good, some not. I think that if we can understand this to some level these discussions will not get so contentious. We should not take these discussions so seriously. I was sorry to see Geoff go. The people that bothered him most were the very people he should have ignored. I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he has his right to them. I would never disparage that. I don't always agree with you either, but you seem very pragmatic. That's why I didn't quite get your post. I hope things are OK with you. You seem a little tense in the same way I was with Clamp. Well I think now I am just rambling, so I'll sign off. What do you guys think?

Well, Vince, guess when one has lived as long as I have, a few opinions are garnered along the way. Back in the early sixties I used to crew on a yacht owned by three very right winged university students, and each race I would listen carefully to their diatribes against this and that. I think it was my first real exposure to the right-winged clan, and what I think I learned from them and all the others I came across later, is that they tend to be far more rigid in their beliefs than more liberal minded folks, who, often, are able to cross over the border and actually support right -winged views. They took me to one political rally of a conservative Congressional candidate, and as I shook his hand and we looked each other in the eye, there was a moment of understanding and he looked away, knowing he was the phony I had seen. Later he was involved in a corruption scandal.

Then in the seventies, I was approached by a group of evangelical missionaries to write a magazine article about their august leader, a man who I greatly admired as leader of, I think, the second largest such organization in the world. I was a locally known newspaper correspondent at the time. So I wrote the article, emphasizing the Christ-like aspects of the leader's life, his humility and willingness to behave like an ordinary human being. I got called on the carpet by his wife with complaints about my work. She went on an on about how frequently he appeared on the 700 Club, how friendly he was with people like the Baker couple and so forth. The judgment then, as now, was that if a person were out there in the public, they must somehow have acquired angel feathers. Total bullshit, of course, but part of the mindless 'dumbness' of the evangelical type. It seems that I didn't include the fact that he was a friend of all the other big-shot evangelicals, many of whom soon folded and were in disgrace or sent to jail. I got to know quite a few and was astonished by how bigoted a lot they were in their general human outlook, much of which I see in some of the posts by members here.

The thing is, the two have gotten mashed together somehow, so that bigots like Dave and Rush are able to create a following along with Huckabee and other right-winged politicians, taking advantage of a prepackaged evangelical group to form a sort of pseudo-moral majority which is neither moral nor a majority. No doubt they are in their comfort zone - like patting each others backs, with as it happens, a very narrow frame of reference.

Not only that, they persist in rigging elections, in using the internet to create false ideas such as the 'swift-boat' one, even assuring victory through putting the fix in to the Supreme Court. We now read where a Presidential aide was made to cook the books to make it look like the country was in worse shape than it was due to foreign terrorists. This so his President could win reelection. Starting way back, with Watergate and before, they are seemingly untouched in their ability to warp the mentality of the masses through very questionable means.

And this is the big difference - the rigidity of position. People, for another example, have recently held Sarah Palin up as a high proponent of right-winged values, but now we see her reputation coming into serious dispute. Many liberal types saw flaws in her character, which were definitely there to see, soon after McCain so unwisely chose her. Palin took on all the armor of her 'dumb' class, touting her skill with a rifle, her membership in the ARA, her support of her unwed daughter and a lot of the rest of it. Nothing more than a phony facade. Her family values, hockey mom front were likely as phony as they appeared to many of us to be. We had little proof, and still don't have, just a very uneasy intellectual feeling.You see, she put on the self-righteous right-winged garb, the extreme nationalism, the unthinking identification with right-winged values. The evangelical right-wing loved her and could see no fault.

So if you are like Goeff and try to go up against such a walled fortress that holders of right-wing doctrine have become, you feel as though you are pissing in the wind. He probably should have known better.

"Oh, you think liberals are any different", you might ask. Most assuredly they are. They take a much deeper and more intellectual look at the facts. Right-wingers often ridicule the fact that many of us are of the intellectual class, members of university faculties, writers, thinkers. We tend to be more universal in our outlook, less willing to toe a nationalistic, chauvinistic line. We clearly see that warfare brings loss and defeat to both sides, that in war their are no victors. We may look askance at some unthinking, bottom-line, capitalistic thinking and actions by many leaders of industry. And we will often tend to think more as individuals than holding to any group-maintained dogma. We will tend to put more emphasis on the rights of the individual to go against entrenched generalized views such as abortion. We may actually look at that unwed mother, raped by members of a gang, pregnant and in a hopeless state, and wanting to abort her misbegotten fetus. We may see that she has rights too, rights that aren't part of a dogmatic view.

You won't find as unified an identity among liberals that you have with the extreme right-winged, evangelical-type cadre.

This, Vince, is related to the even-handedness you seem to see in my posts. I tend to be even-handed to a fault, but that doesn't mean I like to argue against those who aren't so even-handed to the point of tossing out reason. I can clearly see when someone has taken up an untenable position based on some faulty preconceived notions, and usually I'll just let it all pass by. Such will never be able to see reason.

There are, of course, conservative thinkers as well, but they will tend to be more moderate in their approach. McCain seems to have been one of those at the start until he got sucked in by a desire to win at any cost. But even then, when Obama was misguidedly attacked, he was right there with a rebuttal, an intellectual-type conservative when it came to hard facts.

You know, the idea of the ends justifying the means use to be associated with communism. Now it is part and parcel of the right-winged ideology. Forget fairness, forget deep thought and thoughtfully held views, just win and win at any cost. Stamp on the President's reputation and background if you wish, kill the chances of a contender like Senator Kerry and don't bother to apologize later if you find yourself found out. The stakes are high- money, power, position- and they must be gained at any cost. The whole right-winged ideology depends on winning in order to be maintained. To them, not to be in control is unthinkable- it goes against God's perfect plan, doesn't it? It becomes OK to use terrorists tactics against abortion clinics or even shoot dead their doctors. It is OK to use torture to gain results. Water boarding becomes a means justified by the end. On the other hand, the more liberal position will continue to be there regardless. It will maintain that if we throw out rights in the interest of expediency, we have won a battle only to lose a war - the war against human rights.

It is undoubtedly the mindlessness of much of this that irks Goeff and I. As a liberal it is easy for me to be even handed in the face of factual knowledge. It is less easy to face the diatribe of misunderstanding ideology, garnered from the idiots, who, as you perceive, stir up the rabble.

The question here is why we no longer have Goeff's ideas on the forum. A big loss to be sure. And this is what stirs me up a bit, as you say, Vince. I can take anything directed at me personally, but when others get hurt I feel very badly indeed.

There are many in this forum who take right-winged views based on reason, but, like you say, there are a few who are following a misplaced ideology and it gets tiring to argue with such. Best at times to just take a break.

A while ago a friend of mine and I had a bit of a debate. Actually it was a bit one sided. My friend is a bit of a liberal, and I am more of a conservative, well more of a libertarian.

The "conversation" was about the McDonald's Coffee incident.

My comment was that coffee was brewed by pouring nearly boiling water through ground up roasted coffee beans, and placing a flexible cup between one's legs to add cream and sugar was asking for trouble, and that the lawsuit was frivolous and unjustified.

He started out his part of the conversation with "So you've bought into the Republican Lie!" At that point, I just shut up and let him have his 10 minute tirade about how evil McDonald's was, and was deserving of all the penalties awarded the woman. This was in front of my children, by the way.

After that, I did some more research on the incident, and I found out something VERY important for those who get their news from only one "reliable" source.

I was absolutely correct in almost all of my statements and facts, and HE was correct in almost all of his statements and facts. The problem was the spin that was put onto the information, and the information that was left out to both of us.

Point 1: "The woman suffered 3rd degree burns from the coffee spill." Well back when I was in school, that indicated charring as there were only 3 categories of burns at the time. So "How can you get charring with something even less than boiling water?" What I didn't know is there are now 4 degrees of burns, and actually 2 subcategories of 2nd degree burns, deep and surface.

Point 2: "The coffee was served hotter than any other fast food chain" Odd, that one. Coffee is brewed the same way - near boiling water + coffee grounds - how could there be that much of a difference.... It turns out that most other places serve coffee at around 140 degrees Fahrenheit, and McDonald's served it at 180. Okay, hotter... Coffee Connoisseur groups suggest that for proper enjoyment, coffee should be served at between 180 and 200 degrees. So McDonald's was doing right at that temperature. But.... The CUP that McDonald's served the coffee in was only rated up to 140 degrees, hence the failure of the cup when the slightest pressure was applied to the cup. The cup manufacturer had warned McDonald's about this. So some of the financial penalties were justified.

If you limit your sources of information (and many are guilty of this on all sides of the political spectrum) you will end up with an incomplete picture of ANY occurrence that makes the airwaves.

As one talk show host I listen to states:

Quote

ALWAYS REMEMBER:Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on the show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

That was more than I intended to type..... Sorry for the wall of text.

General rule of life (especially true when on the internet) is "doubt everything, even things you believe to be true." If you do that, and research, especially on important topics, then you should come out above average in terms of knowledge and reliability with information.

I like Geoff, but don't agree with his poltics.I guess that makes me a" dumb-dumb"

Again ,I think he should stayed with the forum at least till he finished his ride. Then he should of grabbed a Coke and cigarette gathered his thoughts. Hind sight is 20/20.

Any takers on the REA editor?

i'd do it, but i would only really be able to pull out a seasonal deal, plus i'd need the software for the PDF as well as any templates that Geoff used. if those two things can be provided, i'll jump right on working on the Fall edition.

as to the political discussion this is derailing into, well... i'm just not gonna touch it...

The trouble is that when you fire off a barrage of political insights and opinions they just bounce back and hit you with at least the same force. Nobody is ever going to change their minds on anything and somebody will always disagree vehemently with everything, so nothing is achieved.

Larry, I have read your post several times now. You probably figured out by now that I can be fairly conservative, but I do have another side. I really don't care who sleeps with who, or who marries whatever gender. I believe in a woman's choice. I don't agree with the wars and torture and other abuses we have allowed our government to perpetuate. I do take exception to the insinuation that liberals somehow have the corner on being even handed or more intellectual. In my high school days, my Civics teacher often brought up the Viet Nam war. I became the defacto hawk in a sea of anti-war "liberals". because I stupidly made the observation that if we were going to fight, we should fight to win. I thought this was a reasonable position. I didn't care to see the endless line of our people returning in caskets. Notice, the comment was not on whether we should be there. Yet I was vilified and ostracized by the liberal faction in the school. They were as rigid and unyielding in their thinking and position as you accuse the so called right wing of being. I was once castigated because I described a co-worker as Negro when the accepted word was Black. I didn't care one way or the other. I was just directing a messenger on the factory floor to the head of the correct department. The point that I am trying to make is that there are rigid, prejudiced people on both sides of the middle. Believe it or not, we need them all. Without extremes there is no middle. Reasonable people will reject the wrong and incorporate the good as their own. Right now there is another thread with people shaking their heads in wonderment of scooter people. This is no different in substance than the discussion we are having now. People have their own outlook and are comfortable there. Most are loathe to change. I have met conservative right wing wackos, but I have also met an equal number of liberal left wing wackos. Neither is particularly attractive. I try to avoid both. Neither extreme is the exclusive province of reason or the political correctness du jour. I don't really know how to conclude this post. Except, perhaps, to hope that we all would be a little more tolerant of different views. And that we would present ourselves, both in agreement and dissent, in a more cordial manner.

My father was a Republican conservative, quite generally well-liked and very solid in his thinking. He religiously read U.S. News and World Report and the daily newspaper. He wasn't a particularly good businessman because he was an artist in temperament and very emotional. I think though that he was a typical conservative of his time, which ended in the later 70s. Conservatives in his time had a definite edge in the area of business and running the fiscal aspects of the economy. That was their niche. Democratic liberal types would gain power, tend to make a mess of things, fiscally speaking, then the Republicans could come in and try to straighten things out.

I tend to be a liberal, though mostly pretty moderate. I think my father would be shaking his head at what passes for a conservative in this day and age. Religion was a personal thing back then, just part of ordinary life and rarely brought into the political forum. Oh sure, some wouldn't vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic, and that sort of thing, but religion was on a back burner. Mainly politics was about money. The evangelical movement took hold right smack in the 70's and things haven't been normal since. Suddenly things which should be left at a personal level, like abortion, family planning, prayer in school, Muslim issues beyond the jihad type of thing (Obama bowing to a Muslim head of state for example) have become touchstones as to whether a candidate has worth. Palin steps in with little to offer other then an ability to act the part, and everyone jumps to her side. It is this wacko fringe that has become more commanding, as the conservatives like my father move out and let the fringe dominate and actually take over much of the nation's thought process, and this has me shuddering with confusion.

Someone like Ace, say, or StephenCB have taken a sort of middle position close to a Libertarian viewpoint. Their emphasis is on making a system, badly out of control, work. Whether they are right or not ( and I do disagree with some of the preconception as I have said) they are solid people with solid viewpoints. A liberal, as I have described in the post above, is, like them, a solidly responsible person, but I don't see this fringe element, which wants to confuse Church and State and take away personal rights to choose, has much going for it. It seems to me to be really, really sad that a portion of the old Republican Party has chosen to side with the fringies and allow Rush Linbaugh types to dominate. The old Republicans, the moderates, had too much going for them to allow this to happen, but even McCain rushed to join the Rush-types. Cheney recently confirmed Rush as someone whose views he would follow as opposed to someone more balanced (and I forget who it was Cheney was responding to who called for a move back to moderation).

In Germany, Hitler was able to stir enough people up to form a majority which became the Nazi party. Isn't the same type of thing possible in America? This relates to the end justifying the means because some seem to feel that they are on God's side and therefore anything goes. In addition, there are the skin-head, neo-nazi types that are sounding off as part of the fringe. It does seem scary. Add to this the tremendous power to disseminate via the internet, and it all becomes potentially explosive.

So when I compare a liberal to a right winger, I am comparing what seems to be the situation in America today. I would like to see a move toward Liberal vs. old style Republican conservative rather that new-style Republican evangelical. I would also like to see more of the Libertarian crowd, like Ron Paul, taking hold. But in doing so, I would like to erase some of the distraction that the right-wingers are causing, like the emphasis on Obama's qualifications, background, and, more subtly, the color of his skin. Let's go on to the important issues and not become transfixed by the shallow utterings of a bunch of political hacks spouting off to the world through a non-neutral media. Remember, people like Cheney and many others seem to be taking Rush Linbaugh, in particular, seriously. Not good IMO.

So Vince, the thing you take exception to, that is my belief that the liberals in America seem to have an edge in the thought department, is relative to the fringe elements of the extreme right wing, which is dominating Republican Party politics at present. I mentioned in the post above that there are thoughtful members of the moderate elements of the Republican Party, but their voices seem to have been overpowered. There are simply too many people there who are, like sheep, being led astray.

It really helps to clarify alot when people begin to realize that the whole left/right paradigm is a manufactured political spectrum, meant to keep us busy arguing about which form of totalitarianism we want to have. While the powers-that-be work to move as much power and money into their own hands as possible, by utilizing that immense power to do it, and get more of it. They couldn't care less about "which form of totalitarian control" they have, as long as it's totalitarian, and they control it. When one side pushes us toward fascism, and the other side pushes toward communism, they are both pushing toward the same end goal, and using the two different faces of it to make it seem like there's a choice there.

The true political spectrum is freedom on one end, and totalitarian control on the other end.In the currently advertised spectrum of left/right, it's only a matter of which massa is gonna beat you with the whip. They both use the power of gov't to go way beyond what it was intended to do, and as such they both violate their oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution", and in fact they spit and stomp on the Constitution daily.

The only way to rise above this issue is to realize the ruse that's being perpetrated, and throw off the idea that we can only operate on one side or the other of the totalitarian control end of the spectrum(either Fascism or Communism or a wierd combination thereof). We must push the debate to less gov't power and less gov't control by restoring understanding of the true spectrum, which is a continual struggle between freedom and dominance..

The reason why each Party has heart failure when the other Party gains power is because they KNOW that there are no real boundaries of power anymore, and that makes them cognizant of just how bad they can get whipped by the other bully when he gets control of "the stick" of gov't. And their own personal gain and power might be compromised, and their competitor gets what they want instead. But, regardless of which Party bully gets in power, the people get whipped every time, by both of them.The answer is to take away the "stick" from these assholes, and put it back in the hands of the people, under the rule of law and Constitution the way it was intended. And then use the "stick" to keep the public servants feet to the fire, and provide severe punishments when they violate the public trust. We have to stop being afraid, and stand up for ourselves and our rights and our country, and put these criminal despots back into their places.

The people have abdicated their responsibilities to control their gov't, and of course it became out of control then. You can't have freedom without responsibility. That's something that never was, and never will be.Abdication of self-rule is at the root of the problem. Laziness and complacency.Begging the "Obama-nanny" to take care of you from cradle-to-grave is just what they want, and leaves you a slave.If that's what you want, you can be happy, because that's what it looks like we're going to get. And Obama would be more than happy to assume that control that you abdicate.And the kicker is that once he gets it, (or anybody else in his position) the next act of the play is to institute the "Security Police", and then they start taking away the things they promised, and instead start hitting you on the head if you don't like what you get.

Because you see, NONE of these politicians mean what they tell you to get into their power position. They just tell you anything so that they can get power. It's called "lying", and you can tell they are doing it when their mouths are moving. Alot of of us realize this. And they give you other people's money to try to get you to vote for them, and pacify you while they consolidate their power and control until they have enough power to tell you to go to hell. And then you're screwed, because you just spent your life working to pay the taxes that built your own jail cell.

It's "wake up call" time folks, or you're gonna see things that you never ever wanted to see happening in this nation.

Good, thoughtful post, as usual, Ace. But to tell the truth I am going to have to give what you say some real careful thought. Certainly you are correct that the public has abdicated its responsibility, or rather, the Congress, mainly, has quit being representational. This was seen in the 2008-2009 period of failure when they refused to heed public demands that they stay out of the economic problems of certain industries or companies.

Where I disagree, offhand, is in your 'Obama-nanny" thought. Obama is going out of his way to try to get people to debate the issues and come up with what they, themselves, want. He did have to step in to bring a degree of regulation into the disastrous financial thing that was happening, and to an extent, he did go against the public wish, but I'm not sure the public was well informed over just what was happening during the past year. There does seem to be an information gap, where people are going off half-cocked and not trying to understand the issues.

You generalizations though, I believe may be too simplistic to really fit the modern world. Sort of like jumping off a cliff to get to the bottom rather than working to slowly resolve issues into a system that people can accept. Thus, there are people who want the Federal Government involved in issues such as health care, others who want them to stay strictly out. Meanwhile the system remains in a shambles, as we all know.

Some government control, total government control (totalitarianism), no government control - somewhere in there is a balance which you may be too one sided for your view to have application in reality.

Actually LJ, the "health care system" is perfectly fine and working well.

The "percieved problem" is that some people can't afford it.And no wonder that they can't!They're paying nearly half their income in taxes to pay for all manner of other crap that the gov't is spending their money on, that they don't even want.

Let's try this one on for size, shall we?How about we do like Ron Paul recommends, and scale back gov't spending on all programs, just back to 1999 levels of gov't spending. That's all. Just spend only as much as we did in 1999. Ten years ago.Are you aware that the Congressional Budget Office's own figures show that if we did that, nobody in the nation would have to pay ANY income tax at all. NONE. Zero.We could do away with the IRS, and all the associated income tax bureaucracy too. And all the fear and intimidation that they are famous for.

And so what would that do for us?Well, it would double the take-home pay for many of us. Or for those that were in lower brackets, it would give them about a third more take home pay.Let's say that a person made the national average $40k per year, and paid $15k in taxes. Now he keeps that $15k.Think he could afford a health insurance policy with that? I do.Think he'd have some more disposable income to stimulate the economy and get us out of this recession? I do.

And all we did was to put a leash on the insatiable spending of gov't, just back to 1999 budget levels. And let the people keep their own money instead of paying income taxes.Oh, and what of the programs that get cut? Well, it can be done equally across the board. All segments cut equally. NO partisan special-deals. Just cut it all equally.

That's a good first step, and is a response to your comment about being "simplistic" and "not fitting the modern world".And I think it does. And it can be done in steps, just like that.Stop feeding the beast.